Duping / bluffing / deliberate misguidance by Hindustan Unilever Vs Colgate

How Lever and others affect the Indian skins since 1992  Toilet Soaps

[ Some people seek to know unethical advertisements. Dubious / questionable claims, misdirection, lies, unsupported claims, distortions and misguidance are all duping practices - fooling the customer / public. Advertisements which have any one of these tricks as the backdrop would naturally be undesirable / cheap advertisements. you can find some questionable advertisements in Shun Shampoo  advtspoof, fair n lovely,  antidandruff shampoos, question Lever, Parachute Therapy, and also in many pages in 'Rufooled section. Once a month, you can always come across a dubious claim.  Reach them with Site Map 2 ]

The open fight between Lever and Colgate is presented in this page. The fight between them shows that both are cheap liars - Some of the advertised claims are questionable. They provided the proof against one another

MRTPC did not punish them. The Media reported the matter and treated it as closed. The Advertising Council did not know about it - I have not seen any comment from them.

Should we ignore it ? No. As an individual also, we have power. We can boycott the products of these companies. We can tell others about the Cheap practices. Word of mouth publicity is the most powerful, economical and effective medium for advertisement - Journal of Marketing or Marketing Research, one 1967 / 1968 issue.

Please also refer to 'question Lever'. No one questions them excepting me through this site

Many Consumer Product Companies in India flagrantly violate the terms and spirit of the Law. This is illustrated by giving a case history of the fight between Colgate and Hindustan Unilever. Both are well known International Companies. They claimed more with less - twisted facts.  Not a single company had been punished since 1969, as far as I can recollect.

Hindustan Unilever, Colgate, Johnson & Johnson and many others have violated the terms and spirit of the Law of the Land. Please check Site Map 2 and select your page

Terms and Spirit of the Law expect

It is stated below - 'MRTPC reprimands Hindustan Lever'

 

Background information

Colgate is the major Tooth Paste Seller in India since 1960 or so. Binaca and later Cibaca was the other Tooth Paste. Lever tried to introduce Pepsodent in 1969. It failed to take off.

Pepsodent got reintroduced in 1995 or so with the claim that it has '102% anti bacterial superiority compared to an ordinary Dental Cream'. This baseless claim / over claim worked.

Colgate Palmolive hauled up Hindustan Lever before MRTPC, New Delhi

Some details below are also from the booklet that Colgate provided to the Public after they won the first round at MRTPC. Details, I deem relevant, are presented as one article for cogency and continuity.

 

Cheap Selling practices of Lever and Colgate

The fight details gives one an idea of Ethical standards of these 2 companies - unsubstantiated claims, duping of the public and lies / misleading the public, besides other things. But for the fight, public would not known the darker side of these two companies. Many such cases occur routinely but they remain unknown.

It is advisable to take this case as a representative sample for the 'unknown side' and be prudent in purchase

 

MRTPC reprimanded Hindustan Lever first

If the claim of "102"% anti- bacterial superiority is ultimately not found to be true,"  consumers by and large can be said to have been duped by such advertisement campaign. 'Not found to be true' is in simple terms false / lie. [ It has not been proved to the public till November 2011. Now they want to use the tooth paste every 12 hours. By 2014, I expect that they would specify 8 hours limit]

Over claim / unsupported claim

Colgate pointed out that by ordinary tooth paste, with the way the message was advertised, Lever was targeting its Colgate Dental Cream in particular

 

1. "The commission held that Colgate - Palmolive had established a prima facie case against the ad campaign.

2. if the claim is not established,

 consumers .'.can hardly be compensated in terms of money, as the feeling of being duped cannot be evaluated in monetary terms. ..'

'..We think it is also necessary to injunct the Respondent from referring to any specific quantum of anti-bacterial superiority.... till its claim of such anti-bacterial superiority is fully established'..

[ some sentences are in italics for emphasis / differentiation] The case number is Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No 405 /97.

 

Interlude: Colgate won the first round. It commits the same offence it earlier accused of Hindustan Lever. Lever takes Colgate to MRTPC. To me, both are unreliable and shameless liars. A reader can make one's own assessment

 

Colgate, the offender now

Times of India, Ahmedabad, 14th July 1998. Hindustan Lever [HLL] has taken Colgate to the MRTPC now.

1. "...HLL has argued that by claiming " two and half times more effective protection against germs, Colgate is de facto making a claim of 250% per cent better protection and anti-bacterial superiority.

HLL has alleged that this violates the law laid down by the MRTPC during November 1997, in a dispute between the two companies". What about Lever's violations in subsequent years, if any ?

2. Both these companies appear before MRTPC for the second time with case against one another. They know the Law

Yet, they deliberately commit the same offence that they accused of one another. If 102% was questionable, Colgate goes overboard and makes 250% better protection

3. Colgate's false claim

" HLL has claimed that the level of Xylitol in CDC -DP [ Colgate Dental Cream - Double Protection] is merely 3% percent, which it argues is lower than 10 percent level required for efficacy."

" This is clear from a paper published by Colgate's own scientists which states that the concentration of 10 percent Xylitol is clinically effective in conjunction with fluoride for tooth decay benefits" the complaint allege, adding that there is no published evidence of efficacy of Xylitol in the absence of Fluoride

Lever wins this round

Colgate, to the best of recollection, is advised against using the term "Suraksha Chakra" around the name of Colgate Dental Cream, as it was doing for ages. There used to be a ring around the Colgate toothpaste name earlier

 

Cheap selling methods - some comments

They both made 3 safe assumptions and succeeded

1. Public would not know. Even if they come to know, they will forget easily. Press may bark but would never bite

b] Sermons will be preached from the Podium but there would not any sting - no punitive damages

c] We can use dummy outfits / meaningless certificates in the advertisements to support dubious / over claims. Sub Chalta Hai

Lever talks about lack of published evidence of efficacy. They have hardly provided any evidence for the efficacy of No Marks Cream and Fair & Lovely.

 

Hindustan Lever and Colgate are Liars

Both got indicted - in round one and round two. By their inaction, they prove conclusively that they made dubious claims

Should you trust such liars for their other products or claims ? It is your decision, right or wrong

Pause and Reflect: When these companies went to MRTPC, the tooth pastes were meant to give 24 hours bacterial protection.

MRTPC said the Public can hardly be compensated in terms of money, as the feeling of being duped cannot be evaluated in monetary terms. ..'. Now, in January 2012, they both talk about 12 hours protection - 50% less impactive / reduced protection ?

Lever failed to prove their '102%' efficacy. Colgate failed to prove '250%' ability. The above sermon of MRTPC reads impressive but what is the value today ? Zero. The Public have been fooled. The TV channel do not raise a murmur. Media wag their tails for some advertisements from these companies but would not take up the issue with them in public interest.

Who will cry for you ? None - everyone is busy with their personal works

A person who accepts the above does not tell others. One can generate bad publicity by circulating the news in one's circle. [social networking is for empty chats]. So, companies have no fear of bad publicity. They also know that we are mute millions.

Suggestion: Hair is a more complicated and complex area as of date. Misplaced Trust can make the hair miss forever

 

Labeling Certificates - some are false and misleading

One tooth paste is advertised as approved by Indian Medical Association in August 2005 in Indian TV. Doctors cannot advertise a product. [ Dr. Shriram Lagoo was disbarred I think, for appearing in an advertisement. ]

So Indian Medical Association, cannot endorse a product. If you visit their website, it does not have details about their testing facilities, endorsements or the governing council

Lessons for the Public

One Joke

Lever's TV Advertisement - June 2009: 'Boys who use Pepsodent do not lie'. They imply in a way that Tooth Paste contributed to that Character Trait. If that be true, what prevented the big wigs in Hindustan Unilever from using Pepsodent

and start speaking the Truth. I have not seen any improvement in them as of November 30,2011.

 

	Errors and Omissions exempted.  If there be any unwanted oversights, mistake in content or suggestions for improvements,  I will be thankful for your feedback
	Personal website of R. Ranganathan M.Sc., [ MBA - IIMA]    Main / original content: around 1997: last minor modification,  Jan 29,  2012